For those who think US's system is better than the China's, they need to compare the effectiveness of the two governments on top of their respective election/succession procedures. Then, you will know which one is better.

"I really don't want to get into an argument with anybody, because this is only my opinion."

Alright, alright, I know what you meant. You are not ready yet. I respect your opinion. I just want to say that China is just a one-party-leading-all nation. Take a look at its organisational chart via net search, you will find that its a huge setup akin to a big corporation consisting of a number of boards for the day to day operation. Outsiders might often have the mistaken thought that its high security control over the nation is bad. But US has the same tight security for its own national safety, so do many other nations in the world. In fact, I have given my views in many other forums. IMO, China is not that dictatorial as you think. Check the poll if there is any to see how its people approve-rate the nation. Anyway...., nice to talk to you.

Organized opposition to the system is difficult, much more difficult than, say, organize an occupying wall street movement in the US. But for the ambitious and talented, there are pathways to move up, even to the very top, albeit arduous ones: first you have to buy into the system, then spend years even decades cultivating power base, seeking patronage from the rich and powerful... you know, just like our former community organizer and now the two-term leader of the free world. ;-).

I have always been curious about the power system in China. However, even after several attempts at trying to understand the system, I find my knowledge jaded on this regard and hence don't have enough data to argue with anyone on this topic.

The insights I currently base my opinions are from Chinese classmates who range from middle class to offspring of tycoons. Their diverse inputs have helped me shape my opinions to date.

Besides, what poll are you talking about. Does it include even the layman? because in my view, the bottom of the pyramid is the segment which feels the most negative impact in any system. So, polls that may not include them lose a lot of credibility.

Will the usual apologists for dictatorship (like 'HyunSmith' and 'ahmed limam') ever get the fact that the right to vote is still better than having none? Nope, they won't. They will always fall back on the usual fallacy of false equivalence to 'prove' that being naked is better than at least having a loincloth. Idiots, the lot of them.

Even in direct democracy, you can also manufacture consensus. It is the nature of the world: we constantly influence and control others' behaviors and opinion. Just look at any social interactive environments. The goal of the government is not to be the best, because all government by nature is corrupt. Rather the goal is to prevent government from being the worst. This is the reason that USA constitution is a list of things the government CANNOT do, rather than a list of things government can do.

US election campaign exaggerates the differences between leaders, China's party conclave conceals such differences. As a result, US elected leaders are good at making speeches, Chinese leaders are good at politic amoung factions of ruling elite. It's difficult to say which system produces better and more effective leaders more often.
...but KAL definitely produces better cartoons more often.

Love how these articles/cartoons bring out the American Denialist in their lemming swarms.
-
"Oh our system is soo much better, we just spent $10 billion on our election and yep look at our fabulous economy"

Umm ok. Going down these comments you give out so much. What exactly is your problem? There are things more important than the economy you know. I'm Irish and our economy is terrible atm but I wouldn't trade places with any chinese person.

Well done cartoon, but a bit confusing because the dragon is usually a metaphor (even in KAL's corpus) for the Chinese state or the CPC rather than the Chinese people. The only clumsy party is the flag attached to the car saying "party."

Still, it's the best that could be done. Can any of you imagine KAL drawing a human being dragged along behind a car? And it's still much better than what most lazy American cartoonists draw, what with celebrities' names slapped right on their lapels as if we didn't recognize them.

as a ordinary citizen in china, I just want to say here that it is not my business cause i am not a member of communist party.I just want to know what life i will live in the future, especially, i have no a apartment which is a necessity if I want to marry with my girlfriend. In China, the price of a apartment is just like a rocket.

me too...instead of buying a house, you can rent one.and the price of apartment stop growing ,obviously，and also influence the economic..you should do something to change your life,which you did not like ..

It can be a little complex to understand how the Chinese system works because there are multiple interlocking elected/appointed apparatuses.

Heres a helpful graphic, though I would love to see the Economist or the WSJ do a more comprehensive graphic on all governmental organs and bodies and how they are chosen elected, and who they are responsible to.

First you say China is a meritocracy. When someone points out it is not, you say, 'okay, neither is America', basically admitting what you have just said is false. Whether or not America is a meritocracy is irrelevant. You claimed China was a meritocracy. This claim is false.

It's not because you're the son of someone important that you can have no merit on your own. There a lot of firemen son of firmen, why not politicians son of a politicians?

A child of a head of state, like everyone else, even in a democracy, can become head of state themself. I agree that the line between merit and nepotism can get fussy at time, but there is no logical reason to ban children or siblings altogether.

busy busy, Kal, but nice drawing if one must show the roller coaster ride half a dozen times. Again, however, you miss the difference between American and other elections. American voters, while each lacking the full power of their fraction (1 in 119 million), got to ride along on that coaster. "China," if by the dragon you mean the people, did not take that ride. Their leadership is being decided in secret. Big difference. Your British editors (you are an American) tend to whine about the chaos in America, but they unashamedly beg for American power when they want something that England can't force on its own. "Don't leave Iraq! Don't leave Afghanistan! Help Israel bomb Iran!" Some call this biting the hand that feeds you. I call it whining and dining.
-- DR of the Crimson

I was just reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20246741
'Drew Linzer: The stats man who predicted Obama's win'
about how it was never all that up-in-the-air.
I never did think the pundits knew tea leaves from coffee grounds.

I am no China apologist but the differences between the way the Chinese and the Americans choose their presidents are just cosmetic.The American presidential election is just a big show (think bread and circuses of ancient Rome) to continue the indoctrination of the American people that they have a say over who rules them, when they have NONE. It's big business and banks that rule the home of the free, so it doesn't matter a bit whether it's Obama or Romney: both are appointees of Wall Street. So, this “choice” is actually none. The decisions have already been made by the ruling elite and whoever is appointed (let Americans believe in that myth of “elected”) will carry out these decisions. American voters have as much choice as the Chinese have in selecting their leadership. At least the Chinese are less hypocritical and don’t call their system democratic.
There is only one way forward to achieve TRUE democracy, let the people decide directly on ALL issues. This is what I advocate in democracy 2.0:http://ahmedsuniverse.blogspot.com.br/2011/06/arab-spring-comes-to-europ...

LOL. If you don't want to vote for the so-called "appointees of Wall Street", there are several other candidates. You are not obliged to choose between Obama and Romney. Well, at least they know how to lead better than the communist butchers.

Oh, really they "know how to lead better than the Communist butchers"? Last time I checked, China had yet to invade any country whereas the US is still engaged in TWO invasions, one of them completely illegal and where hundreds of thousands of innocents have died. So, if any leader is a butcher, it's more the American leader than the Chinese one.

Agree, with you, people should vote for others, but how do you react differently when you have been brainwashed by the best television and print press which money can buy. So, sure, it's citizens' faults that they put up with scoundrels, when they should be up in arms. Still, that doesn't make scoundrels any less so.

When is the last time you checked history? The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to change the government in these two countries. America didn't take even a square meter of their land. In contrast, China invaded Paracel Islands (1974), part of Spratly Islands (1988), Mischief Reef (1994), and is now planning to occupy the rest. I'm surprised that you don't know.

This is how he fools you. He SAYS a lot of anti-business rhetoric but he DOES nothing against them. Two proof points:
1. He appointed as Attorney General a corporate lawyer who is making sure nobody on Wall Street is prosecuted for their misdeeds leading to the financial crisis

2. The major business papers (such as The Financial Times and this very Economist)which are the mouthpiece of the business community all endorsed Obama for re-election. Why would they do it if he were anti-business?

Oh,and who gave America the right to change the governments in those countries? Certainly not the UN whose very Secretary General determined America's invasion of the UN was illegal.

How disingenuous of you to compare China's occupation of a few rocks in the South China Sea with America's occupation and destruction of two large countries which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of locals AND thousands of American servicemen

a few rocks? Are you kidding. China sank 4 navy ships and killed 74 soldiers of South Vietnam in the 1974 battle. In 1988, 64 North Vietnamese were killed.

Alright. I know that you support Taleban and you think bringing it down is illegal. Is it legal to shoot those little girls just because they dare to go to school? Is it legal to murder thousands of Kurdish? Well. A significant part of civilian died in Afghanistan and Iraq was due to the terrorism regime that you support.

How horrible from the Chinese to have killed 74 + 88 Vietnamese, when the Americans killed how many exactly during the Vietnam War before they were sent packing? Sorry, buddy, but nothing you can say can excuse the crimes committed by the American government IN THE NAME of the American people (and, yes, the Chinese also did horrible things, following the example of their good friends in Washington.)

Ok. I give up. You can criticize the US if you want but please don't ever say that China is innocent (as you were brainwashed). If you were Japanese, or those people living in the South East Asian, you would understand why people bear resentment against CHINA. You will see that when battles break out in South China Sea. Not long.

I repeat that I said they too did horrible things. But at least they don't claim they are the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, the world's greatest democracy and other bullshit that America wants the world to believe.

At least the Land of the Free doesn't censor the Internet. People have the right to say whatever they want lol. I believe. That's enough. You have the right to believe in your own ideas so I won't oppose.

"But at least they don't claim they are the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, the world's greatest democracy and other bullshit that America wants the world to believe."
------------
So true, American Denialist they're entertaining with their made up beliefs.

Even in direct democracy, you can also manufacture consensus. It is the nature of the world: we constantly influence and control others' behaviors and opinion. Just look at any social interactive environments. The goal of the government is not to be the best, because all government by nature is corrupt. Rather the goal is to prevent government from being the worst. This is the reason that USA constitution is a list of things the government CANNOT do, rather than a list of things government can do.

And we saw the result of their freedom to say what they want: an election stolen by Bush Jr, a president Obama beholden to Wall St and special interests and lobbying groups etc. Americans can say whatever they want, the country is run BY and FOR a minority that follow THEIR own interests not the majority people.

And stop being childish and trying to find any little meaningless difference between China and the US. We could make a long list and it still will NOT change the underlying reality

Again, this is another major myth manufactured (to use a term you like) by America's elite. The Constitution which allowed slavery and made sure people didn't vote directly for their president was from Day 1 a NON-DEMOCRATIC one. It was also violated by presidents, Congress and even the Supreme Court. The SC took upon itself to sanction laws based on the constitution, a power it never had (the Supreme Court was just supposed to be a court of last appeal). Bush jr violated so many constitutional principles with, among others, Guantanamo, America's daily shame, and Lincoln by launching the Civil War and preventing states from seceding also violated the Constitution. As for corrupt Congress, it violates the Constitution on a daily basis.

You said that last time you checked China was yet to invade another country. When somebody gives you counterexamples you start talking about America. Whatever America did, or does, these counterexamples still hold. America's actions are irrelevant to the argument.

Let's not be disingenuous and let's talk about SERIOUS invasions.There is NO way, I repeat NO way, you can compare the Chinese takeover of a few rocky islands in the South China Sea, which FEW people have ever heard of, with the full-fledged invasion, occupation and destruction of well-known, large and established countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant to the argument, you are the only one referring to them, for whatever reason. You said China 'had yet to invade any country', now you change your claim and refer to 'serious' invasions. Whether an invasion is 'serious' or not it is still an invasion, you should admit that what you previously claimed is false.

not just a few rocky islands. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line
Look at the picture. China even wants the sea of Singapore and Brunei (that's crazy!!!). Since nobody lives underwater, I bet you would say that it is not SERIOUS.

When I studied law (in America of all places) I was told that nobody can be prosecuted or judged based on INTENTIONS. China may WANT to grab Singapore and Brunei and Greenland and Central London, but the US DID invade, occupy and destroy several countries such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Somebody tells me how what China MAY do is worse than what America DID do

Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant to you because your agenda is to exonerate the US from its foreign-policy crimes. I repeat what I said: China is a dictatorship, has done horrendous things but there is no way one can compare its invasion of those large,world-famous, prosperous,rich, beautiful islands (now, you're happy) with what America did in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan: invading, occupying, destroying, killing tens of thousands of civilians. Germany has, and continues, to apologize for the crimes committed by the Nazis. America has yet to apologize for any of its foreign-policy crimes, meaning it is willing to continue. Which one is worse?

'Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant to you because your agenda is to exonerate the US from its foreign-policy crimes.'

Not irrelevant to me, irrelevant to whether or not China has invaded a foreign country (which false claim, you have yet to withdraw). I have, in fact, made no claims about America one way or the other; it is bizarre, to say the least, that you impute such an agenda to me.

We all know the existence of hidden agendas. Whatever China has done to other countries is nothing compared to the much bigger crimes of America. So my question is: why are you banging on China when the bigger criminal government is let loose? Now, that is an interesting question

I am not 'banging on' China. I am 'banging on' your disingenuous methods of arguing. You claimed China has never invaded a foreign country. When it is pointed out that this is false you start talking about 'serious' invasions, but do not withdraw the original assertion.

As I have pointed out, even if America's crimes were 'much bigger' this would make no difference to what China has or has not done. You are the one changing the subject.

I finally understand your argument that Chinese government is horrible, but American government is also horrible, so we Americans should not criticize China. However you don't have to better than another before you can criticize something. Let us say you watched a movie, and felt it is the worst movie ever. You have every right, in USA at least, to criticize the movie even if you have no prior experience that shows you can make a better movie. We should criticize whenever we see injustice even American ones.
-
Furthermore, I agree that American government has many faults, you mentioned some of them. However, when it comes to treating its own citizens American government is better. It did abolish slavery. It allows peaceful protests and anti-government movements, just watch the last election. It allows citizens to not elect Mitt Romeney, even though he has super rich and powerful allies who wanted to buy him an election. It allows many other things that Chinese government does not allow. There are so many great things in America that you have to live here to appreciate.

I am not sure that the American government treats its citizens better, and if so it must be only marginally so. Slavery has been abolished? Yes, and replaced by modern-day work where you work your ass off for corporate America, have no life of your own, are just a cog in the machine, can be fired at any time, and find yourself with no unemployment benefits, your 401K stolen by greedy CEOs, your home foreclosured. You may make some good money but it all goes to pay for the goods and servcies that you have beenbrainwashed by the consumer society to buy (Apple products, anybody?) The American dream is a dream for a minority and a nightmare for the majority.

Peaceful protests and anti-government movements allowed? Well, we saw what happened to the Occupy Wall St movement? They were hounded, detained, harassed, beaten just because they were protesting what everybody knew: that the 1% is exploiting and pauperizing the 99%. So yes, in America, you can protest when it has no impact on the political-economic system, but as soon as you touch on REAL power, you are mercilessly oppressed. Just like in China. Go and rally against anything harmless,like a bad movie. The Communists in charge of China couldn't care less. But start demonstrating against their power and you will be crushed...just as in America.

By the way, I lived many years in the US, and travel there often,so I know what I am talking about.

I believe you did a lot research on the subject. All the problems you highlight here is not wrong, I recognize many of them. However, these problems are only more pronounced in a totalitarian government. For example in USA when you work full time for a corporation, most people have insurance and some degrees of a retirement plan, but in China there is no insurance for these people, if you got injured in factory, "best of luck to you! you are fired" is what your boss would say to you, even if you are not fired, you will have to pay for it yourself. If you somehow got an insurance, your insurance would deny your coverage because they know you have no power to sue them. In China, the occupy wall street protesters will be either tortured or dispersed after the first few days of the protest. In China you don't even have 401k, and if you have no job and have no family support, you will be starved to death. In China, there are TV ads Radio ads, internet ads, virus ads poster ads everywhere, you name it. There are fake products everywhere. Most people have either an apple product or a fake apple product. People get food poisoning on regular basis, many of them die. Most of my family is in China, whenever I visit them, I get food poisoning every single time. People get away with it because there is no rule of law in China, it is a jungle in which everything is stack against you if you are born in a poor family. Democracy in USA has many faults but it definitely better than the Chinese system. However, it does not mean we shouldn't improve or even overlook the problems with our government. People in USA are constantly discussing and debating the problems we have in our government and ways we can improve the government. If you have friends who at a government agency, you will know that the discussion is fierce and every department in the government is constantly improving based these feedbacks.

You might be an Indian, correct me if I am wrong. I know that Indian Democracy is not working well. There are many reasons why. However, I believe it will be wrong to criticize democracy, a belief that government should serve the people not the other way around. I also believe there are many ways that you can improve a democracy. The system that is in India is clearly an example of a failed democracy, but it does not mean democracy is worse form of a government than an authoritarian government.

No, I am not Indian (although I am not sure if you meant Asian Indian or American Indian.) Yes, you and I agree that democracy is always best but only when we have TRUE democracy, that is DIRECT democracy (or DirDem as I call it.) Representative Democracy, or RepDem, has served us well for a while but is now woefully inadequate. Most Western countries are NOT true democracies, but quasi- or mock-democracies as I call them.